The Edwards bowline has been my primary knot for tying in during the last year or so. The only reason for this is the ease of untying after loading.

Does this knot have other names that are more known and has it ever been tested? Am I trusting my life to something almost completely unheard of and am I the only one stupid enough to do so? Am I going to die?

The Edwards bowline has been my primary knot for tying in during the last year or so. The only reason for this is the ease of untying after loading.

This knot is gratuitously complex. You can have the same results of security, strength, and ease of untying with other bowline variants. Cf. http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg. Esp. the simple wrap and 2nd tucking of the end shown as the "Prohaska Bowline" (but actually presented well before Heinz did, by Wright & Magowan in 1928) will give good results.

As for testing, what sort of test would you like? --strength? That won't matter (but it should be good). The better test would be one in which the untensioned knot is jiggled, in an effort to loosen & untie it.

This knot is gratuitously complex. You can have the same results of security, strength, and ease of untying with other bowline variants. Cf. http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg. Esp. the simple wrap and 2nd tucking of the end shown as the "Prohaska Bowline" (but actually presented well before Heinz did, by Wright & Magowan in 1928) will give good results.

Thanks for this link, I think I've never seen these variations before. The Edwards takes about as much time to tie as a double figure eight but due to its complexity none of my partners can inspect it. My main problem with many bowlines has been the need for an additional stopper knot. It gives me the feeling the primary knot is not cutting it since it needs to be backed up and secondly it takes a lot of time (and rope) to tie and untie several knots when just one could do the job. I will definitely give your suggestion a try.

knudenoggin wrote:

As for testing, what sort of test would you like?

It would be nice to know if any wild twist on the rope next to one's harness is good to go or should a little bit more attention be paid towards the knots used? I've understood that the rope does not break during falls regardless of the knot used but the horror stories about knots becoming untied on their own make me somewhat concerned about my choices.

I'd also like to know the tendency to roll when loaded across the loop for different bowline variations. I'm understanding it's a situation to be avoided since they are, after all, bowlines.

Thanks for this link, I think I've never seen these variations before. ... My main problem with many bowlines has been the need for an additional stopper knot. It gives me the feeling the primary knot is not cutting it since it needs to be backed up and secondly it takes a lot of time (and rope) to tie and untie several knots when just one could do the job. I will definitely give your suggestion a try.

Tying a couple knots in sequence, where the combination is needed for sure security, could be seen as you do, or just taken as in a sense **one** attachment structure--incomplete until the 2nd component is done. In some ropes, the bowline is left unaided; but the common kernman tle ropes of caving/SAR/climbing has such firmness (resisting bending) and smooth slick surfaces that a bowline can loosen. But there is that advantage upon desired untying, so the extra work to keep it secure has a pay off. (And, frankly, one might be as quick or quicker in making the seemingly more extended knotting than in forming and dressing a Fig.8.)

There are several ways to make a wrap of the eye legs with the end and then re-tuck the end through the "rabbit hole", which does a few things: it secures the end a bit; it fattens & rounds the mass of material around which the mainline compresses (which should help strength); and it points the end away from the eye--which for climbers means that gravity should be usually pulling the end in the right direction. The two end-wraps shown in my URLink of a "single" bowline (center, & right) work by holding the eye leg that springs from the rabbit-hole turn up snug to the knot body and thus inhibits it from loosening. This sort of extra tucking has good forms in both the regualar ("right") bowline and the so-called "Cowboy" bowline in which--as with "Edward's"--the rabbit goes around the tree in the other direction, leaving the the end outside of the eye (which form is much more secure against ring-loading, btw).

Vary that Prohaska bowine by bringing the end around under BOTH eye legs, and then up around to the front (as image presents it) and down through the rabbit hole between its first two passes--which makes for a knot that is symmetric (i.e., if you put a circle around the knot body, you can't tell which is eye side--same coming & going).

In reply to:

I'd also like to know the tendency to roll when loaded across the loop for different bowline variations. I'm understanding it's a situation to be avoided since they are, after all, bowlines.

As noted above, if the single bowline is tied with the tail on the "outside" of the knot and not between eye legs, on ring-loading which you are concerned with the effective knot is a reverse sheet bend or Lapp bend, and holds much better than otherwise. The extra tucking done as described above only further secures the knot. Conceivably, the Fig.8 eyeknot is also vulnerable to "rolling" and so could be argued to need a long tail (not a greatly reassuring recommendation!) or a back-up knot (the sometimes recommended "Yosemite" re-tucking of the end actually aggravates this vulnerability!).

Note that the simple Overhand base tied for an eyeknot as though making the infamous "EDK" yields a water knot on ring-loading. cf http://i1.tinypic.com/2z3z8ts.jpgIt seems to be a nicely secure yet fairly easily untied knot.